Search for: "United States v. Stevens"
Results 3641 - 3660
of 4,055
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Aug 2008, 10:05 am
Executive respecting what, in Stevens' view, was the failure of Texas to discharge itsduty as a matter of international law -- to remedy the potentially significant breach of the United States' treaty obligations ....Also dissenting from denial of a stay were Justices David H. [read post]
6 Aug 2008, 7:07 am
Some tragedies just haunt you forever.Given that the only possible enforcement for Vienna violations would be action by the United Nations Security Council, in which the United States has a veto, it's hard to predict what will happen going forward. [read post]
6 Aug 2008, 3:46 am
The Department of Justice of the United States is wellaware of these proceedings and has not chosen to seek ourintervention. [read post]
6 Aug 2008, 2:39 am
Texas had the opportunity to follow the Oklahoma model, noted in Justice Stevens' concurring opinion in Medellin v. [read post]
5 Aug 2008, 3:31 pm
Medellin anyway, taking the decision out of Congress’ hands and placing the United States irrevocably in breach. [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 11:45 am
Similarly, in Nixon v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 9:08 am
Penal Law §120.25 Not 'Crime of Violence' Under USSG §4B1.2(a)(2) United States, appellee v. [read post]
27 Jul 2008, 3:27 pm
United States, 116 U. [read post]
27 Jul 2008, 7:14 am
United States v. [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 3:02 pm
Earlier coverage of Medellin v. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 3:48 pm
Here is the Third Circuit roundup: United States v. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 2:30 pm
On the heels of United States v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:14 pm
Stevens, No. 05-2497 Conviction for selling depictions of animal cruelty is vacated, and the statute itself, 18 U.S.C. section 48, is declared unconstitutional, where: 1) the criminalization of depictions of animal cruelty, rather than of the acts of cruelty themselves, is a content-based regulation on speech; 2) the speech in question does not constitute a new category of unprotected speech; and 3) the government has not shown that the statute is narrowly tailored, using the least… [read post]
20 Jul 2008, 2:13 pm
I can sellz video? [read post]
17 Jul 2008, 11:34 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Jul 2008, 1:48 am
" United States v. [read post]
15 Jul 2008, 4:23 pm
” On the other side of the balance, the judge noted the government’s interest in detaining those who “actually pose an immediate threat to the national security of the United States during ongoing international conflict” and ensuring [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 6:00 pm
United States Compliance, Nos. 2-06-0825, 2-06-0889 (11/30/07). [read post]
13 Jul 2008, 2:05 pm
Of the original group, only John Paul Stevens remains. [read post]
13 Jul 2008, 1:56 pm
Of the original group, only John Paul Stevens remains. [read post]
